And in more Catholic news, the Pope is stepping down, not because of internal strife, mind you, but because he's "infirm": http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/11/16924342-pope-benedict-xvi-to-step-aside-on-feb-28-vatican-says?lite>1=43001

So they spent the liquid assets and left "IOU by 22XX" in its place. That little trick sounds familiar. Now, who DID they learn that from? Hmm.

> Why does SHE find it immoral, I asked
> (because "Butt sex is icky!" perhaps)?

It's weird when lefties peer so deeply into the souls of others that they read them like tweets, complete with quotation marks and exclamation points.

I mean, this person (and I don't care enough to follow the link) never actually said anything of the kind, right? It's just that you want butt-sex-is-icky to be your cartoon adversary, so you're drafting her into that posture.

> but because he's "infirm":

JP2 ruined these guys for me... I thought we were entitled to 30 years of service out of each one of them.

Know who's shitting his pants this morning? Mahony... Not that he could have aspired to the Big Chair himself, but he knows that none of the TV stations (etc.) are even going to be asking for his opinion on these events. When you're out, you're out.

You did it AGAIN. You'll make them say what you want them to say, with quotation marks and exclamation points: You know exactly the fight you want to have with someone, and you're going to have it, no matter what.

My first thought was "Nice office."

How elegant is your Monday morning workplace?

So Kim Kardashian can spend 10 million on a wedding, stay married for 72 days, and gays are the ones bringing down marriage? Oy!

I was raised Catholic, but no longer practice. The church is full of evil masquerading as benevolence. I can say this with conviction because I spent over two years cleaning up after them.

I never liked this pope. Being a member of Hitlers youth probably doesn't produce a whole bunch of soft, warm, squishy niceness for homosexuality or anything else that doesn't meet with the bibles expectations. Plus, he just looks evil.

So I wonder which scandal will break out of the Vatican in the next six months.

You did it AGAIN. You'll make them say what you want them to say, with quotation marks and exclamation points:

No, Crid, shes asking them to think for themselves beyond the 'because I was told so' stage and simply used a graphic turn of phrase to spark the process

"Graphics" = cartoons. Neither of you is perceptive or clever enough to make an argument in those terms. Ascribing imaginary arguments is almost comically childish.

Also, you missed the period at the end of your sentence.

There are like a zillion religions to chose from. If you don't like the Catholic stance on gay rights, abortion, feminism, whatever then go be an Episcopalian or something.

I don't get why people get so worked up about the Church. This isn't the middle ages... you can vote with your feet.

@Wtf, the world is full of evil, rude, self centered people doing, and believing things that do little beyond advancing their own financial intersts while trying to claim the moral high ground. Self dealing is ubiquitous in every culture and religion.

On balance, the Catholic church is no worse or better than many others. Actually better, because you won't find Catholics picketing service members funerals.

By far the greatest number of paedophiles out there, are not Catholic priests, but because they are not attached to a deep pockets institution, suing them would not be worth your time.

Our entire justice system is structured so the people with the money are the ones that get sued, and get their names and organizations publicized, unless you pay off the dems to hush it up for ya.

I am afraid that pot is about to run dry, since the plantiff's bar trolls, seem to be getting increasingly frantic in their televised appeals for more victims.

No, I am not Catholic, but I am grateful to them, as they gave me the only viable option to keep my son out of a horrible public school, where radical environmentalism seemed to be the only religion they actually practiced. I'll take a lapsed Catholic (who was raised with some values) any day over that mess.

As far as Catholics worrying about the immorality of homosexuality, I have never heard it discussed. As long as you don't want to enter the clergy, and move your gay lover, into the rectory, most of them could care less.

I am just curious- what does "radical environmentalism" entail at a public school?

Well, one of the things it entails is telling all the kids how the wolves in Yellowstone, have more "right" to be there than people do, and showing crap like Earth in the Balance in science class, instead of actually teaching. The list goes on, but I am sure you get the picture.

I actually had my daughter's third grade teacher lecture me in the grocery store, about how wonderful, returing wolves to Yellowstone was going to be. The lecture was accompanied by all the standard leftie propaganda.

I asked her to give reasons it's immoral, beyond "the Bible says so!"

She couldn't even think of AIDS?

"But they claim to be holy and hold the answer to what is holy, which most other corrupt people out there don't."

You are kidding, aren't you?

The Roman Catholic church is the least likely to lecture non Catholics, or non Christians, for that matter on what is "holy" or what you should believe.
Ever had a Catholic knock on your door, and attempt to convert you? No? Neither have I.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, spends their time lecturing everyone on exactly how you should live your life, and what you should believe if you want to be considered a "moral" person. Then when you have the balls to disagree, they demonize you, through their media whores, or sic the IRS on you. Thank God, for the NRA.

"But they claim to be holy and hold the answer to what is holy, which most other corrupt people out there don't."

You don't have to wear a clerical collar or go to seminary school to claim holiness, at least in some sense. It happens all the time. Are you really saying that most other corrupt people, when called out, wouldn't protest their innocence and virtue?

Which doesn't excuse the RC Church, of course. They've earned the vitriol that comes their way, and more, probably. But there are other juicy targets as well.

BTW: Isab and I must have been typing at the same time. Isab got there first.

> Catholics are fighting gay marriage and more
> in keeping with their religious belief

How does this differ from those of you who "impose your morals" in keeping with something else? Who's more authoritarian?

You know exactly the fight you want to have with someone, and you're going to have it, no matter what.

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that Crid?

If they are fighting it and winning, then they deserve to win, no? Is that not the basic assumption of a democracy? (yes, I know, we're not really a democracy).

So you are saying that anyone who has a belief you don't share, and fights to get people to vote with them, is evil? Is forcing their views on the rest of us? Seems to describe the pro gay marriage people pretty well, too.

Or, is it only okay if people get others to vote their way, if their opinioin isn't based on religion? Would people campaigning to resume slavery be non-evil, if it was only because they hate nappy hair and not because of religion? Is it JUST the religious base you hate, or is it all opinions you don't agree with?

So you see what I was getting at.

"The Democratic party, on the other hand, spends their time lecturing everyone on exactly how you should live your life,"

Iowa conservatives introducing an abortion-is-murder law, defining a zygote as a person:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/11/iowa-anti-choicers-admit-they-want-to-imprison-women-for-abortion/

I never liked this pope. Being a member of [the Hitler Youth] probably doesn't produce a whole bunch of soft, warm, squishy niceness for homosexuality or anything else that doesn't meet with the [Bible's] expectations.

'cause a 78 year old man can't have gained any wisdom or empathy or compassion after his teenage years.

He is forever what he was at 17?

Plus, he just looks evil.

Well, that seals it - off with his head!

Some woman on Twitter has been going on about how homosexuality is "immoral." Because the Bible says so, she says. Not good enough as a reason. Why does SHE find it immoral, I asked (because "Butt sex is icky!" perhaps)? She had no answer.

"Because the Bible says so" is all anti-gay Christians can offer. Although it's impossible to read their minds, I'd say it's quite likely that anyone who is anti-gay -- whether they are Christians, other religious people or even non-religious people -- is strongly repulsed by the idea of gay sex, and probably much more so at the idea of two men together compared to two women together.

I always ask anti-gay Christians why, if homosexuality is so terrible, Jesus never said a single thing about it. One would think that if it was such an abomination, he surely could've come up with an ill word or two. They, of course, have no answer.

> Catholics are fighting gay marriage and more
> in keeping with their religious belief

How does this differ from those of you who "impose your morals" in keeping with something else? Who's more authoritarian?

Many (probably most) conservative religious people are opposed to gays and lesbians being able to get married.

No gays and lesbians (that I'm aware of) are opposed to conservative religious people being able to get married.

It's obvious which group is imposing their morality on the other.

@ Isaab:

Oh HOLY HELL did you pick the wrong person to argue with on this one. Maybe look beyond your nose and you will see that the catholic church is responsible for genocide, rape, and murder, all within the last 150 years. I spent two years as a rape crisis intake worker specifically dealing with claims related to the aboriginal scandal in Canada.

Up here see, they used to have what up until 1998, (when the federal government finally decided they couldn't keep it under wraps no more and scrapped the whole project) were called Indian Residential Schools. These lovely little institutions were a plan concocted by the federal govenment and CATHOLIC CHURCH (oh other churces were involved NicoleK but the Catholic church was the worst offender) to breed the native out of the child.

Aboriginal children(in many cases as young as 2) were transported across the country to attend "schools" where they were forced into hard labor, beaten, molested, starved and murdered. This started in the 1850's and continued until 1998. 1998! Where was the Catholic church then Isaab? Oh yeah, behind the whole damn thing.

http://wherearethechildren.ca/

The Catholic church sets up missions all over the world based on this model, saying they will save the people. The only catch is, you have to convert in order to receive the help. Those who don't are not only pariah's, they are also forcibly converted in a lot of cases.

The very fabric of the Catholic church is based on lies and secrecy. Why do you think thousands upon thousands of children have been molested over the years, and the priests responsible simply moved to another neighborhood, with lots of fresh victims. The bishops and cardinals don't say a word, don't warn anyone, it happens again, the whole thing is hushed and the victims payed off, (cause remember the Catholic church is the richest church on the planet, ever. While small countries starve, thank you oh benevolent holy one!) and the priest is moved to a fresh neighborhood. Do it all again.

Still feel like defending these monsters?

Here's a great response for using the The Bible™ as justification against homosexuality.

> It's obvious which group is imposing their
> morality on the other.

Were marriage a private arrangement, you might have a point... But it brings obligations to the surrounding community.

"Still feel like defending these monsters?"

Yep, sure do, on any issue I will happy to defend a person or a private organization, which has values, that they wish to defend, whether I personally agree with them or not.
I don't see any modern Catholics stoning women for adultery or burning witches at the stake. What individuals who were Catholic may have done 400 years ago has as little relevence today as me condeming you because one of your ancestors was a communist. Atheists do not have the moral high ground here. Unfortunately their historical predecessors are Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a whole host of other bad actors.
I am not in the business of condeming whole populations or organzations for the crimes of either their ancestors or their predecessors.

People are brutal. History is brutal. No human society or organization has a clean record in the violence or hypocrisy department. The Catholic church has been a pretty good reflection of the culture that spawned it.

Notice how the human race is strangely lacking in utopian peaceful little agrarian villages filled with atheist flower children? Why? Because people stupid enough to think that kind of passive bucolic utopia is even possible don't survive long enough to pass on their genes.

Show me an organization or a government that you think is truely benevolent, with "pure" origins and I will happily hand you a microscope and a history book, and prove you wrong.

Notice how the human race is strangely lacking in utopian peaceful little agrarian villages filled with atheist flower children? Why? Because people stupid enough to think that kind of passive bucolic utopia is even possible don't survive long enough to pass on their genes. -- Isab at February 11, 2013 9:40 PM

I'm going to disagree, in part, on the idea. If you have ever been around the Amish, or Mennonites, they do have it for the most part. The reason they have that is because those of us around them are willing to take up arms to protect them from the rest of the "uncivilized society".

Were marriage a private arrangement, you might have a point... But it brings obligations to the surrounding community. -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 11, 2013 9:12 PM

I've actually have argued this already.

Under the Abrahamic religions (Catholic/Christian/Jewish/Islamic) teachings the standard for marriage is a man and a woman. That is essentially how it is codified in the Bible, Torah and Koran. If you use the Koran it is one man and up to four women. Those are all non-secular (religious) standards.

When the United States was created, many of the states had a non-secular constitution and an established religion for that individual state. Most states dropped the established religion between 1787 and 1788 when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the U.S. Constitution. Some still persisted, but that was written as a state’s right to do so.

No matter how much you try to find the word marriage in the federal Constitution, or even a close brush you won’t. It is a Tenth Amendment[1] issue.

So the states, for various reasons, created marriage certificates. The marriage certificate, as originally designed, was an adjunct to the church authority that gave those that were married a legal standing and exemptions, etc. But as far as the state government is really concerned all a marriage certificate is, and at implementation, was a predefined civil contract between a man and woman for inheritance, child rearing, and responsibilities between two partners. You can go into the details ad infinitum.

Over the years the marriage certificate insinuated itself into the law with the tax code, inheritance laws, the custody laws and more. If you do a Google search for gays and laws. Or even search for unfairness in inheritance you can find many of these cases.

Essentially what I’m saying is that when it comes to city hall and the church, the church is a sacrament. The civil government (city hall) has viewed the marriage certificate as a predefined contract.

Over time the government created tax credits and other things that affect or are affected by the marriage certificate. These appear in the the IRS code, inheritance rules, etc.

As a quick example: if I’m married to a person of the opposite sex and that person dies, the instant presumption is that I automatically get all the property, short of what a will says. This is a man married to a woman regardless if the family didn’t like me. The law is currently, that my estranged family has more rights in my health care than my partner for thirteen years.

I experienced this years ago. I was with my lady for 13 years. We never married for various reasons. I had a medical power of attorney, and a financial power of attorney. She passed away, unexpectedly, on a Saturday night July 2005. I called 911 and the paramedics showed up, along with the deputies. The coroner showed up as well, and issued a death certificate. Because we weren’t married, we had to call her daughter and tell her “mom was dead, what do you want to do with the body?” over the phone. I had no rights. My dead sweetheart was lying in our bed, and I had no say in what happened to her.

Now to get to the point — if you want to argue that a marriage is a union of a man and a woman — then you are arguing for religious interference in state’s rights. You are going to lose on First Amendment grounds.[2]

It is time to change the secular contract that is “marriage” to what it truly has been all along — a pre-defined contract as recognized by state and federal governments. The religious aspect is still available to those who want it. The government can recognize the social aspect by not defining the genders.

[1] — Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[2] — First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Times have changed. The social, civil union, portion of the Marriage Certificate needs to change. The problem is that society has not separated the legal from the society. It all should be a Civil Union contract. The word marriage should be used in the non=secular arrangement.

I think it's funny you guys think it's a religious problem that people have with the gays. People use their religion to justify it certainly, but I've met plenty on atheists, agnostics, etc. who don't like the gays either.

I mean in Japan there is basically no religion and being a fag is way harder than here.

So what's the real reason? Its just a natural instinct people have. Look at Cher, Barbara Streisand they are super liberal and couldn't accept their gay kids until much later.

Wordy, Jimpers.

> The problem is that society has not separated
> the legal from the society.

If I can't fuck your wife, I'm party to the contract.

Jim P., you waived those rights by not getting married or setting up some other legal arrangement. I'm sorry for what happened, but if you wanted those rights, those rights were available.

Also, why do we need to change the name of marriage?

I freakin' hate name changes. Like Colored became Negro became Black became African American became Of Color.

Like retarded became special became mentally challenged became whatever it is these days.

Why do we keep changing the names of everything?

Unless something has fundamentally changed it doesn't need a new name.

Marriage is a legal contract. Marriage IS a civil union. You don't need to change its name, it is what it is!

He is forever what he was at 17?

No Conan he isnt, hes also defined by his actions as a Cardinal when he shieled pedophiles

And his actions as a pope when he instructed clergy world wide to teach that condoms cause AIDS

There's more, bu those two are good enough for me.q

@ Isaab;

You quite obviously didn't read my comments properly, and didn't follow the link. That, or you're slow.

The Indian Residential Schools didn't close until 1998. 199-fucking 8!!

This isn't some historical tragedy that happened in days of yore. This happened when your grandparents, parents, and *YOU*, were in pre-school, grade school, college, and well past the age when they and you would enter the work force.

People like you are the reason the Catholic church has been allowed to thrive in it's evil. You defend the Catholic church because of it's image of benevolence. No matter the sin, you will defend it. This is the reason bishops and cardinals are successful in simply moving the offenders to a different arch-diocese, with no warning being given.

These priests should be defrocked, but people like you want to defend them because they are good and honest folk that had nothing to do with the sins of a small few. Thing is, they might not have done it but they do cover up for it and keep the secret with their very lives, lest they be ex-communicated.

But you keep defending them Isaab. I realize it makes it easier on you to believe that no organization would be responsible for such heinous atrocities. You keep sticking your head in the sand. It'll all go away.

Or do you approve of their actions? Cuz that's really how your response reads.

hes also defined by his actions as a Cardinal when he shieled pedophiles ~ lujlp

I don't know - Everything I've read about him indicates he's worked very hard to expose and correct wrongdoing inside the Church.

From Wikipedia:

Prior to 2001, the primary responsibility for investigating allegations of sexual abuse and disciplining perpetrators rested with the individual dioceses. In 2001, Ratzinger convinced John Paul II to put the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of all investigations and policies surrounding sexual abuse in order to combat such abuse more efficiently. According to John L. Allen, Jr., Ratzinger in the following years "acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic Church can claim" and "driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as 'filth' in the Church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a 'conversion experience' throughout 2003–04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess". In his role as Head of the CDF, he "led important changes made in Church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders." As the Head of the CDF, Ratzinger developed a reputation for handling these cases. According to Charles J. Scicluna, a former prosecutor handling sexual abuse cases, "Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, sine acceptione personarum (without exceptions)."

One of the cases Ratzinger pursued involved Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, a Mexican priest and founder of the Legion of Christ, who had been accused repeatedly of sexual abuse. Biographer Andrea Tornielli suggested that Cardinal Ratzinger had wanted to take action against Marcial Maciel Degollado, but that John Paul II and other high-ranking officials, including several cardinals and notably the pope's influential secretary Stanisław Dziwisz, prevented him from doing so. According to Jason Berry, Angelo Sodano "pressured" Cardinal Ratzinger, who was "operating on the assumption that the charges were not justified", to halt the proceedings against Maciel in 1999. When Maciel was honored by the Pope in 2004, new accusers came forward and Cardinal Ratzinger "took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel" After Ratzinger became pope he began proceedings against Maciel and the Legion of Christ that forced Maciel out of active service in the Church. On 1 May 2010 the Vatican issued a statement denouncing Maciel's "very serious and objectively immoral acts", which were "confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies" and represent "true crimes and manifest a life without scruples or authentic religious sentiment." Pope Benedict also said he would appoint a special commission to examine the Legionaries’ constitution and open an investigation into its lay affiliate Regnum Christi. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn explained that Ratzinger "made entirely clear efforts not to cover things up but to tackle and investigate them. This was not always met with approval in the Vatican." According to Schönborn, Cardinal Ratzinger had pressed John Paul II to investigate Hans Hermann Groër, an Austrian cardinal and friend of John Paul accused of sexual abuse, resulting in Groër's resignation.

In March 2010, the Pope sent a Pastoral Letter to the Catholic Church in Ireland addressing cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests to minors, expressing sorrow, and promising changes in the way accusations of abuse are dealt with. Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations. The Pope then promised to introduce measures that would 'safeguard young people in the future' and 'bring to justice' priests who were responsible for abuse. In April, the Vatican issued guidelines on how existing Church law should be implemented. The guideline dictates that "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed." The guideline was intended to follow the norms established by U.S. bishops, but it does not require the reporting of "allegations" or crimes where reporting is not required by law.

=========================

From Wikipedia regarding the Indian Residential Schools scandal in Canada:

In 2009, [Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine]had a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI to try to obtain an apology for abuses that occurred in the residential school system. The audience was funded by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Following the meeting, the Vatican released an official statement on the church's role in residential schools:

His Holiness recalled that since the earliest days of her presence in Canada, the Church, particularly through her missionary personnel, has closely accompanied the indigenous peoples. Given the sufferings that some indigenous children experienced in the Canadian Residential School system, the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity. His Holiness emphasized that acts of abuse cannot be tolerated in society. He prayed that all those affected would experience healing, and he encouraged First Nations Peoples to continue to move forward with renewed hope.

Fontaine later stated at a news conference that at the meeting, he sensed the Pope's "pain and anguish" and that the acknowledgement was "important to me and that was what I was looking for."

=========================

Like too many institutions, the Church has become a bureaucracy better at protecting and perpetuating itself than at its real duties.

Like the willful blindness at Penn State, too many insiders were more concerned about the Church's reputation and survival than about the victims.

The Catholic Church is going to have to convince people it can clean house (best done by actually cleaning house) if it wants to continue to convert people to its belief system and remain relevant in the world.

However, to remain the Catholic Church, it must remain the guardian of traditional morality (even if that definition has to evolve a bit).

That will be a tough line to walk.

Perhaps with Benedict's resignation, the next Pope will be able to clean house more effectively. That will depend entirely upon the College of Cardinal's willingness to vote in someone other than a 78-year-old caretaker.

This next Conclave could very well determine the long term future of the Church.

I think it's funny you guys think it's a religious problem that people have with the gays. People use their religion to justify it certainly, but I've met plenty on atheists, agnostics, etc. who don't like the gays either.

Perhaps you have. My experience has been different. I've only known one person -- Jewish, but not religious -- who finds gays to be squicky (although this isn't quite the same as saying he doesn't like them), but he still believes that gays and lesbians should be able to get married.

Aside from our personal experiences, this piece, Religious Voters and California's Proposition 8 notes:

There were large differences between religious groups on Proposition 8. The vast majority of white evangelical Protestants supported the ballot measure (88% to 12%). The measure also garnered significant support among Catholics, with Hispanic Catholics supporting Proposition 8 at slightly higher levels than white Catholics (62% to 57% respectively).

White mainline Protestants were significantly more likely to oppose Proposition 8 than any other religious group. They split evenly over the measure (50% to 50%). Californians with no religious preference were overwhelmingly opposed to Proposition 8. Approximately 4-in-5 voted against it.

Now, obviously, 1-in-5 Californians with no religious preference were in favor of it, so it's not as if the only people opposed to same-sex marriage are religious, but I don't think anyone claims that. But I'm sure you would find that in the U.S., and all other Western countries, the vast majority of opposition to same-sex marriage, and dislike of gays in general, comes from religious conservatives and, to a lesser degree, religious "mainline" people.

Jim, excellent post. I agree with you that, in theory, it would be good for every couple to be legally united via a civil union contract and then if, additionally, a church wanted bless them with a marriage, it could do that. Thing is, religious conservatives would be opposed even to this arrangement because they wouldn't want liberal churches to have that option.

Jim P., you waived those rights by not getting married or setting up some other legal arrangement. I'm sorry for what happened, but if you wanted those rights, those rights were available. -- NicoleK at February 12, 2013 7:33 AM

No argument on that. The cost of all the paperwork to do all the stuff pre and post-mortem was north of $1K while still staying on the legal side of her benefits. We just never had the free cash to do it.

Feel free to comment at my blog as well.

Marriage is a legal contract. Marriage IS a civil union. You don't need to change its name, it is what it is! -- NicoleK at February 12, 2013 7:36 AM

Are you Catholic? Then you can get divorced in a court of law (the temporal sword) but by the spiritual sword you would need the Church's authority and dispensation to be considered divorced or the marriage annulled.

The authorities that control those two different powers are nor the same. And it also applies to other religions as well (mostly off shoots of the RC church and the Islamic faiths).

Most of the Protestant faiths don't subscribe to the concept as they believe you have a direct connection to God® without going through the spiritual sword of the your version of the <Protesting> church for guidance.

Also, back in the early 90's many states took out the definition of common law marriage[1] for anyone past a certain date, if not entirely denying it. This was to prevent the LGBT community from using the legal term marriage for a couple, that did not use a church, that had established a long term relationship.

So there is a need to differentiate the combination of your life with your spouse.

[1] -- www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

Thing is, religious conservatives would be opposed even to this arrangement because they wouldn't want liberal churches to have that option. -- JD at February 12, 2013 5:53 PM

I know of several churches that won't marry their older parishioners (generally 60+) without a state marriage certificate to sign. They view that submission to the state and federal laws superior to the church's spiritual rules. They are also losing parishioners at a steady rate.

Then I know of several churches that are more than willing to bless the commitment of older parishioners and the LGBT community without the recognition by the temporal authority.

I'll let you guess which have more attendees.

There is always a difference of interpreting doctrine and the rest of the reality.

This gets sort of Godwinish, but please read through before you abandon the concept.

The Bible™ was the written as the Word of God®. But the addition of the new Testament amended the The Bible™ that it should be handled as parables.

The Koran was written and never amended that it was the Word of God® and nothing could be changed or interpreted other than was originally written.

The Bible™ even has "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) acknowledging the secular and non-secular are different.

The Catholic church has not always been hands off when it comes to secular issues, but it generally knows the limits of it's influence in secular rulings. (Swiss Guard, Copernicus, etc.)

The Koran™ and Islam® have not generally observed that limit.

So then you get to the Luther split. That split took years until the the <Protesting> churches really split from the <catholic> (all-embracing) view that the Church™ had control of everything through the Pope™.

The Protestant movement allowed people to realize that they were no longer beholden to the king or the Church of England.

America was probably the first country to split the temporal and spiritual authorities.

So now there is probably going to be a difference among the <Protesting> churches the is already being seen in the Southern Baptist Convention and other Protestant conclaves.

Jim, what state do you live in? In MA where I got married the marriage license was like $60 bucks or something.

OK, here are a few secular arguments against gay marriages:

1) There was a study that came out showing kids do well with gay parents, and people speculated that it was because those kids were all planned: either adopted, or through surrogacy or fertility treatments.

There should be a follow-up study to see how those children compare to the children of traditional couples who use the same methods. Until there is one, there are too many factors.

2) There's the slippery slope argument... as we legalize gay relationships, we may also start normalizing other alternative arrangements such as bigamy or incest. Perhaps those arrangements should be legalized... but we don't really know what the long term consequences on society will be.

Come to think of it, we don't know what the long term consequences of gay marriage will be either, as while a few cases can be found in the ancient world, it wasn't widespread.

3)If people who are bi and not 100% gay get married in same-sex relationships, it could lead to even lower birthrates, as many SSCs adopt rather than having their own kids.

... and whatnot.

For the record, I support gay marriage. But to say that there are no secular arguments against it is not true. You may, as I do, reject those arguments, but they still exist.

On another note I'm sick of people calling the pope a nazi. He was a kid during WWII. All children were required to join the Hitler Youth. If you say he's a nazi, you're saying that all German people who didn't go into hiding are nazis, even the kids. This is dangerous. You don't blame kids for the actions of the government. That is absolutely uncool.

What about all the people calling the pope a sociopathic murdering bastard for telling africans that condoms spread AIDS?

Come to think of it, we don't know what the long term consequences of gay marriage will be either, as while a few cases can be found in the ancient world, it wasn't widespread.

An argument I made last night. Traditional marriage (whether polygamous or monogamous) has been part of all civilizations for thousands of years.

Even civilizations that endorsed or tolerated or accommodated same-sex relationships (ancient Greece, ancient Rome, modern? Afghanistan) did not have a legalized same-sex marriage arrangement.

Granted, things do change over time. However, it's hubris to think that because our science-fu and our technology-fu are more advanced, our tolerance is somehow wider and our wisdom is somehow deeper and more insightful.

And it's not prejudice (or religious intolerance) to make an argument against same sex marriage.

I happen to favor allowing same sex couples to be legally recognized as "married." However, there are some good arguments against it and if the pro-crowd doesn't take those arguments into account when crafting the same-sex marriage legislation, our society could be in trouble down the line.

An argument I made last night. Traditional marriage (whether polygamous or monogamous) has been part of all civilizations for thousands of years.

So was slavery, legal prostitution, animal and human sacrifice, body modification of infants.

What about all the people calling the pope a sociopathic murdering bastard for telling africans that condoms spread AIDS?

That's not what he said.

The pope was arguing that giving out condoms promoted riskier behavior and did nothing to break up the informal social networks in Africa through which AIDS is spreading (e.g., partners overlapping over time or multiple partners in a period of time).

=========================

Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, in an article entitled "The Pope May Be Right" argues for evidence-based (where have we heard that before?) AIDS prevention measures, stating "in theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere ... that's not what the research in Africa shows."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

=========================

It's not like the Catholic Church is indifferent to AIDS suffering.

From the Guardian (2008): "the Catholic Church is the biggest private provider of AIDS care in the world, providing antiretroviral treatment, home-care visits and counseling to one in four of the world's 33.3 million AIDS patients, according to the Catholic charity Caritas International. In 2008, members of the Catholic HIV and AIDS network spent 180 million euros (about $235 million) on assistance...."

So was slavery, legal prostitution, animal and human sacrifice, body modification of infants.

And none of those were changed overnight. And none were changed without ramifications.

Even when they had ceased to be of use to society.

Come to think of it, we don't know what the long term consequences of gay marriage will be either, as while a few cases can be found in the ancient world, it wasn't widespread.

I can think of a very positive consequence: as Amy noted, two people who care about each other being able to have a commitment contract with each other that is recognized by the state (for state benefits and other legal protections).

What do you see as potential negative consequences?

Furthermore, we know opposite-sex marriage -- with divorces, cheating, spousal abuse and child abuse -- is far from perfect. Do you really think, even in your most cynical view, that same-sex marriage could be worse than opposite-sex marriage?

For the record, I support gay marriage. But to say that there are no secular arguments against it is not true. You may, as I do, reject those arguments, but they still exist.

I forgot to address this. There may indeed be secular arguments against it, just as there may have been secular arguments against interracial marriage. But I'm sure you would find that the vast majority of the opposition comes from religious people, particularly conservative ones. Again, note the finding I previously posted about secular people and California's Proposition 8: Californians with no religious preference were overwhelmingly opposed to Proposition 8. Approximately 4-in-5 voted against it.

> I'm sure you would find that
> the vast majority of the
> opposition comes from religious people,
> particularly conservative ones.

So is the point to convince others of the righteousness of your position, or is it about scratching out whatever majority you need to make things happen?

Left & right the entire country is Enchanted with government power nowadays... And no one puts any stock in their ability to make a case.

It's *policy* or go home.

Notice how the human race is strangely lacking in utopian peaceful little agrarian villages filled with atheist flower children? Why? Because people stupid enough to think that kind of passive bucolic utopia is even possible don't survive long enough to pass on their genes. -- Isab at February 11, 2013 9:40 PM
There are several Eastern religions that are peaceful and non-judgmental AND have endured the test of time all without bribery, persecution, threat of execution or eternal damnation. Buddhism comes to mind first but I'm quite sure there are others.
I have always felt there is something fundamentally wrong with organized religion of any denomination. It is for those people who lack the confidence to make their own decisions, who require the approval of others to know what is right or wrong. This type of thinking is dangerous for society but obviously advantageous to the few power hungry sitting at the top. The masses are easily manipulated. Fear guides their every decision. Afraid to be judged by their peers..."I won't be like the rest." Afraid of eternal damnation. Anyone or any group who takes advantage of or exploits fears of the people who trust them can be, should be classified as EVIL.
There may be a few individual exceptions in there like there may be a few cops who actually become cops to "protect and serve" and not because they're egotistical, power hungry jerks who need an excuse to bully other people around.
It is remarkable how much response this got.
This is America folks. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness so long as in their pursuit, they do not infringe upon the pursuit of the happiness of the guy next to them... Even if THAT guy likes icky Butt sex!

I forgot to address this. There may indeed be secular arguments against it, just as there may have been secular arguments against interracial marriage. But I'm sure you would find that the vast majority of the opposition comes from religious people, particularly conservative ones. Again, note the finding I previously posted about secular people and California's Proposition 8: Californians with no religious preference were overwhelmingly opposed to Proposition 8. Approximately 4-in-5 voted against it. -- JD at February 13, 2013 6:16 PM

Even if that is true about the vote, the U.S. is supposedly a representative republic. The Federal or State is limited to what is in their constitutions.